It isn't 'his church', it is man-made
and a money making enterprise (as are the majority of other churches out
there).

No, 100% of your tithes and offerings do not go to the poor
and needy (not even close). You can look at the financials your church
publishes in England and Canada to verify that if you're actually
interested.

I sit here smiling because I have first hand knowledge of the money my church
donates and the good it does locally because I have been in leadership positions
which oversaw donations and a very close relative works for one of the
church's many entities. To tell you that you are so wrong would be such an
understatement that it would seem pointless. The LDS church is in a lose/lose
situation from such folks. They would be accused of tooting their own horn if
they disclosed their donations. So the church takes the high road and
doesn't say anything, because it's none of these nattering
nabob's business, and just accepts their groundless criticism.

The word "charity" means love. The salvation of individuals is the
highest expression of love. Therefore, I am very comfortable that tithing is a
worthy means toward that lofty end. The LDS church owns many buildings (paid
and maintained through tithing funds), and those buildings are used for
ordinances that are essential for salvation. They are expensive because they
are built to last. Our Savior definitely approves.

@OtisBDriftwood- with our country
declining, eighty percent increase to the debt, and over half our people on
their knees for a variety of welfare,--Anti Obama is expected of those who love
the country.

Good gosh this has gotten silly where just about every discussion devolves into
either anti-Obama or anti-religion debates. Neither are as good, nor as bad as
most make both out to be.

And no - the church doesn't disclose
its financials, no - Romney doesn't need to disclose anything, and no -
Obama isn't the anti-Christ, and yes, the economy crashed nearly 2 years
before he was elected.

I dont see the relevance of how much Obama donated to a church that he rarely
attends. He doesnt proclaim to be "religious" and certainly is not
inclined to support Religious Freedom over a more secular view. With that being
the case, what would you expect?

Also,as someone else said, do you
really think that donattions to a church are more honorable that donating to a
relief agency?

Kind of a tacky article to focus on his church
donations. Sounds like a little bit of "holier than thou" empahsis.

It is nice to see that Obama has given to charity. And technically it might be
accurate to claim the amount given is 12% of his income. However, He does not
pay rent. Vacations at taxpayer expense. Of the 6 years he has been in office
1/2 year has been spent on the golf course. His family vacation to Hawaii last
year, though Obama and friends picked up the tab for the rental, cost the
taxpayers over $3 million.

So many of the American people unemployed
and struggling financially and we have a President that Parties like its
1999.

I don't see how anyone can argue to defend this kind of
spending. It is not political, it is just not right.

Oh but, Outside-View, Mr. Obama DOES claim to be a Christian, and his
brothers' keeper, and yet these numbers reflect otherwise.

Then,
consider how in 2011 Mr. Obama chose to make charitable contributions of 22% of
gross income; a far, far greater amount than he'd ever before given. Of
course Barack knew that he would likely be running against the very charitable
Mitt Romney, who historically gives at least 10% of his income to his church,
not to mention other charities.

Lastly, the Obamas' returns
show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than
1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.
In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to
charity, just 1.2 percent of their taxable income. The next year, the donations
jumped to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of their taxable income. Their
charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the
presidential office. (from a NY Times article dated March 26, 2008 by Leslie
Wayne)

"If the government ran like the church you bash, things would be so much
better."

Care to point out where you feel I "bashed" the
LDS church? I actually agree that if all charityorganizations ran like
the LDS charitable arm, things would be run very good. And I stated exactly
that in my post.

"It' a separate donation outside the
10%."

Actually, it sounds as if you have substantiated my post.
Which took exception to ones claim that " 100% of my donation will actually
go to those in need?"

Really, Deseret News, is there a need to publish how much he donates to his
church. We all know his religious tendencies when he said that when people get
bitter they cling to guns and religion. Nothing he has done since is
inconsistent with that statement.

@OtisBDon't get all worked up by the most outspoken posters on the
blog. This country has 20% of the population that refuses to objectively
educate themselves on the issues. Unfortunaltely 80% of them blog here.

"pointing out what has been done with Obama since taking office, and not
even mentioning GWB's contribution to that escalation of the debt is a
double standard."

Here's a fact:

In March 2012,
having only been in office for little more than 3 years, the amount of debt
Obama has added matched the amount Bush added in all his 8 years as president.
It took Obama 3 years and 2 months to match Bush's 8 years of debt-adding,
yet liberals want to make it sound like Obama's spending is nothing
compared to Bush's spending.

Here's some math: It took 8
years for Bush to add as much debt as Obama did in 3.16666 years. If
Obama's rate of debt increase were to remain constant, that means that by
the time he leaves office he would have added about 2.5 TIMES as much debt as
Bush did. Bush added about 5 trillion; at Obama's rate he will have added
about 13 trillion. Ouch!

----"This country has 20% of the
population that refuses to objectively educate themselves on the issues."

That can't be right. If the number were that low, Obama
wouldn't have been re-elected. Obama thrives on low-information voters.